This is how they talk:



Remember this:

Salt is good. But if the salt shall lose its savour, wherewith shall it be seasoned? 35It is neither profitable for the land nor for the dunghill, but shall be cast out. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear. (Luke 14:34-35)

Good bishop, you're just "a pawn" in Francis' Marxist, atheistic agenda.  He's not a Catholic and he's not even a believer; if he was, he would not make statements which are manifestly contrary to the Catholic Faith.  If you do "reconcile" with him, he'll simply "move the goalposts" against you down the road.  If he uses the word "is", he'll mean something completely different; it'll be like you and him are speaking two completely different languages.  You'll just end-up losing your Catholic Faith, and, perhaps, your eternal, immortal soul.

Does +Fellay read CathInfo?

Does you honestly think he cares about what any of us thinks?

Honestly, if he considers Francis to be pope with the certainty of faith, then he had best reconcile with Rome, and quickly too.

Does the Church actually teach that the identity of any particular Roman Pontiff has to be or can be known with the certainty of faith?

He most probably cares about what Archbishop Lefebvre thought:

“It will be the Superior General's job, when the time comes, to pick up the threads again with Rome.”

“The one who will therefore have responsibility, as a matter of principle, for relations with Rome when I am gone will be the Superior General of the Society…”

Oh please. More accordista crap.

How about you don't ignore the part I bolded, above.

It's obvious to anyone with a brain that Rome is *not* interested in converting back to the Catholic Faith. They are firmly travelling on their well-worn path -- the broad path -- to ever-greater depths down the path of Modernism, Liberalism, and secularism.

When are the talks going to take place? I know back in October there was a meeting. And if I recall correctly, it was to be in secret but a journalist leaked out the info. What developments have occurred since then?

Quote from: Matthew

It's obvious to anyone with a brain that Rome is *not* interested in converting back to the Catholic Faith. They are firmly travelling on their well-worn path -- the broad path -- to ever-greater depths down the path of Modernism, Liberalism, and secularism.

And who has the authority to determine "when the time comes"?  You?  Me?  Bishop Williamson?

Should the Superior General have first taken a world-wide poll of all Traditional Catholics (especially the online vocal ones) to see if the majority thought "the time has come"or not?  

Or, should he have, after prayer, penance, and consultations with his assistants, followed the path that he believed Divine Providence indicated to him to follow, until such time he was given the certainty to go no farther?  

Personally, I prefer the second method. I believe it is what actually occurred, too.  

This reminds me of the "Who are you to disobey the pope. By deciding what you will and won't obey, you make yourself your own pope. What pride!" argument of the conservative Novus Ordo Catholics.

It also reminds me of the relativism of the modern philosophers: "Absolute truth cannot be known."

Sorry, but Catholics have a sensus Catholicus and a simple layman can easily know if something is Catholic or not. Call it a Catholic version of common sense. The Catholic Faith is not that difficult.

Anyone with his eyes open, who has not compromised (and hence, become desperate to defend the Vatican) can easily see what Rome is about today.

No conversion of Rome has happened. The consecration of Russia has not taken place.

All the warnings Archbishop Lefebvre gave during the LAST FEW YEARS of his life are still in full effect.

It's not rocket science.

Quote from: Ladislaus

Does +Fellay read CathInfo?

Does you honestly think he cares about what any of us thinks?

Honestly, if he considers Francis to be pope with the certainty of faith, then he had best reconcile with Rome, and quickly too.

Does the Church actually teach that the identity of any particular Roman Pontiff has to be or can be known with the certainty of faith?

Yes, the legitimacy of a pope must be known with the certainty of faith; otherwise, no dogma that he defines can be known with the certainty of faith (according the "weakest link" principle of logic peiorem partem semper sequitur conclusio).  Papal legitimacy is known as a dogmatic fact.

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Malleus

Quote from: Ladislaus

Does +Fellay read CathInfo?

Does you honestly think he cares about what any of us thinks?

Honestly, if he considers Francis to be pope with the certainty of faith, then he had best reconcile with Rome, and quickly too.

Does the Church actually teach that the identity of any particular Roman Pontiff has to be or can be known with the certainty of faith?

Yes, the legitimacy of a pope must be known with the certainty of faith; otherwise, no dogma that he defines can be known with the certainty of faith (according the "weakest link" principle of logic peiorem partem semper sequitur conclusio).  Papal legitimacy is known as a dogmatic fact.

Where is all this taught? What about during the Great Western Schism when no one knew who the real Pope was? What about any other time when there have been deceptive antipopes who have even reigned from Rome?

It's taught by pretty much every Vatican II theologian.  There are times when there's doubt, such as during the Great Western Schism.  Until the doubt is resolved into certainty of faith, the actions of a doubtful pope are not binding upon consciences, according to the theological maxim (Papa dubious papa nullus. -- "a doubtful pope is no pope").